- Taschenbuch: 482 Seiten
- Verlag: Stacey International (15. Januar 2010)
- Sprache: Englisch
- ISBN-10: 1906768358
- ISBN-13: 978-1906768355
- Größe und/oder Gewicht: 13 x 3,3 x 19,6 cm
- Durchschnittliche Kundenbewertung: 2 Kundenrezensionen
- Amazon Bestseller-Rang: Nr. 276.814 in Fremdsprachige Bücher (Siehe Top 100 in Fremdsprachige Bücher)
The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science (Independent Minds) (Englisch) Taschenbuch – 15. Januar 2010
|Neu ab||Gebraucht ab|
Kunden, die diesen Artikel gekauft haben, kauften auch
Es wird kein Kindle Gerät benötigt. Laden Sie eine der kostenlosen Kindle Apps herunter und beginnen Sie, Kindle-Bücher auf Ihrem Smartphone, Tablet und Computer zu lesen.
Geben Sie Ihre E-Mail-Adresse oder Mobiltelefonnummer ein, um die kostenfreie App zu beziehen.
In diesem Buch(Mehr dazu)
Despite this, the author A. W. Montford does a superb job in telling the story in a rather fair and transparent way, I think. The language always stays on the polite side, contrasting with some excessively aggressive communication styles in several well-known climate blogs. In this book one learns about the history of the hockey stick curve, how it supported the anthropogenic climate warming model, why it was needed and how it was put together. One learns the crucial role of statistics that can change the meaning of a whole dataset. We hear about suspicious tree ring datasets that have been used in the making of the hockeystick curve. Some of these datasets have been used by many authors as temperature proxies, even though these tree ring data might not always record temperature. We hear how hockeystick shapes can be generated out of random data. One wonders why data is not made openly available by the Hockey Team for independent checking of the results (something that normal reviewers cannot do due to time constraints). It might have to do with the fact that the resulting temperature curve failed the R2-statistical test which was considered as unimportant. We are also told that the alleged later "independent" confirmation of the Mann et al. temperature curve was carried out by a former PhD student of one of the original hockeystick authors (Bradley).Lesen Sie weiter... ›
Die hilfreichsten Kundenrezensionen auf Amazon.com (beta)
players, exposing the unethical tactics that the originators of the hockey stick theory used to foist their scam on the public and, most harmfully, presented it to politicians for their misuse. You can read transcripts of some of the email exchanges among the players, further illuminating the development of the con job of the century.Complex story,. Excellent book.
In the past century, global temperatures rose by ~1C (0.5C from the 1970s to 1990s) during a time when CO2 levels significantly increased due to industrialization. By itself, CO2 should warm the earth by ~1C per doubling of CO2 ("climate sensitivity"). Alarmists, though,hypothesize positive feedback will also kick in and magnify the sensitivity to 3-10C due to increased water vapor, which is the most powerful greenhouse gas. But this has never been proven and the real-world evidence is shaky at best (computer models don't count as real evidence). Since 1998, temperatures have been flat with slight random fluctuations. So it's both true that recent temperatures have been "flat" and also at "record" highs- unless you include the Medieval warming period. The MWP is significant then because it casts doubt on the notion that CO2 has high climate sensitivity. The simpler null hypothesis is that we're well within natural variation and that most of the 20th century warming was not due to CO2.
In 1998, Michael Mann et al published a temperature reconstruction of the past 1000 years with a "hockey stick" shape, which claimed to prove that the MWP wasn't that warm (or global) after all and that late 20th century temperatures were at unprecedented levels. The hockey stick became the face of AGW and convinced the public (myself included) that AGW was a dire threat.
In 2002, Steve McIntyre, a semi-retired Canadian mining consultant with extensive statistical expertise tried to reproduce the Hockey Stick. Montford's book is a blow-by-blow account of his and economist Ross McKitrick's long struggle to obtain the source code and data used for the hockey stick. Other reviews cover the details of this- the important fact is that McIntyre and McKitrick eventually proved the Hockey stick and other "independent" temperature reconstructions used by the IPCC are completely invalid. Along the way, we get a tutorial on "how NOT to do science"- it turns out that alarmist climate scientists were determined to eliminate the MWP so they cherry-picked data and "tortured" the statistics in order to get their desired outcome. Also, peer review of papers is often a rubber stamp- very few if any reviewers actually try to replicate the paper. And nearly all climate scientists refuse to divulge their source code and data- which makes independent replication near-impossible. (These revelations are disappointing but hardly unique- these practices are also quite common in the pharmaceutical industry where billions of dollars are also at stake.)
Montford's superb and exhaustively researched book is essential reading for those interested in the climate debate and its neglect by mainstream media is shameful. I regret not reading it sooner. (I had no interest in reading it back in 2010 because I figured it was written by a right-wing nut*. Since then, I've done my homework and I realize now- like most people who dig into it- that the "climate emperor has no clothes").
Also highly recommended is "Neglected Sun"(2013) by the same publisher, which focuses on the sun as a driver of climate change. It's certainly true the sun hasn't been proven (yet) to be a major factor in climate change- but that applies more so to CO2.
*Note: Montford is on record of saying he doesn't necessarily think AGW is wrong- only that the evidence for it doesn't exist yet.
The narrative is highly readable, not mathematical, except that Montford does specifically give the official names of things. Instead of saying something like "they blew the math" he tells you how data were improperly normalized, or the use of SVD, and the consequences. In addition to describing the ill-advised technical issues, he describes appearance of the poor science (seeing what you want to see), other more common human foibles such as possible (or likely) "cherry-picking", and the suppression of contradicting evidence, all of which are not supposed to be in science.
While it would not be difficult, based on his blog perhaps, to discern the Bishop's views on AGW and its politics, the current book is basically impartial, except as it relates to the poor science and the overriding political motives of the AGW advocates. It deals rationally and fair-mindedly with the (illusion of the) Hockey stick graph. People commenting on the book are advised to direct criticisms, if any, on the basis of what he writes rather than what "camp" they perceive the author to belong to. This does involve actually reading the book however. Expect the usual reflex one star submissions from those who review just the title - and then go on to a few stock comment about the decline in the penguin population at the North Pole.
So, by the way, how DO you get to read the book. As of this writing, it does not appear to be widely available on Amazon in the US, and let's hope that will be directly available soon. I got mine from Amazon.UK, which was surprisingly easy - pretty much like this Amazon site. Shipping was about as much as the book, but I think it was only $26 with the shipping, and it arrived in 8 days by "Royal Mail". And it's a beefy book of almost 500 page-turning pages.